Joost Poort responses on the key note presentation of Charlotte Hess from an economic perspective. Poort is Economic Researcher at SEO on the market structure and regulation of infrastructures.  He explains that economist have a very strict definitions of public goods and that digitization turned many culture goods into public goods. The easy answer on the question of ownership that arises is to ask cultural finance, but it is not just about shifting money, it is also on welfare deduction. The consequence of deduction can easily be explained by the light house as an easy example of a public good. You can’t exclude people to use it. But even then, the people of the harbor has to fund it.
There are some other problems we see nowadays in the cultural sector. There is hope for a more or less voluntary contribution to a public good, when the users value it enough to give a contribution or donation. In addition Poort says that public information should be freely available.

To Poort the idea of the commons are changing trough technology. This change is notable in the cultural industry where a lot is happening at the same time while  sharing and cost redundant go hand in hand. According to Poort the definition of a public good is non rival and non exclusive in economic terms. Digitalization turned information sources into public goods. Traditional public goods are in the domain of public finance, the transformation from commercial goods to public goods does not mean the goods have to be under public funding.  A public good is never for free, a lot of money is involved of often hidden costs. Although this debate is not about equity, it is about public funding not solving the issue of public goods if all else fails. The example of the light house is given here. If the harbor stops funding the light house, who will lead the way for the ships to come and make use of the provided services the whole community benefits from? And when funding stops, different incomes should be explores just like the music business does not urn their income on selling CD’s, the money is earned nowadays with music concerts and performances.

To Poort a commons is an essence, rival but not exclusive therefore it is according to Poort probably not possible to give a closed definition in an economic perspective of the commons. The more good is shared, the more good is available while the value increases. But even if a public good is free, people are willing to pay if they can see ad value in it. A large percentage of people still buy CD’s after downloading, therefore a public good does not have to be for free. A suggested model can be of sponsoring or subscription such as the case with online music service Spotify. Or in the case user terms a trusted, save and easy payment structure such as the Apple app store can bring about payment for common goods. For Poort, public information should be free of use, including all information which is already paid for. But what happens if a common good is partly funded?

A wider perspective on the commons of public information Poort mentions the costs of privacy in accessing this information and protection of surveillance. When information is free of use and aces, it can also be used for different, including negative purposes.  A unwanted effect of free information for Poort is the car number plate mobile text massages request for car prices. Everyone who is interested can find out the price of a random car.  The debate of privacy and additional costs is slightly mentioned with this example.

Poort responses on the question that key note speaker Charlotte Hass raises of the role and goal for the library in this digital era. He states that the public libraries in the age of the E-Books technology will change and replace the old model for traditional library models do not work in the digital age as he says, ‘I wanted to rent an e-book but it was out of stock‘. Bas Savenije, Director General of the Dutch Royal Library in the Netherlands KB, responses to this comment by stating that the duty of the library should not only be to make E-Books available, but also to support the community in providing information. Public libraries should be more of a platform and service provider than finding place. Libraries should answer to the new need of the public to show their value to the commons.